ui_find

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: returned paths are only valid while the accessibility tree is unchanged, and lookup works through AT-SPI independent of window position. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool does, the second explains why it is the reliable way to act, and the third gives a critical freshness caveat. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, mechanism, and a key validity constraint, and 100% param schema coverage fills in the parameter details. There is no output schema, so it would be helpful to describe the exact return format more explicitly, but 'Paths returned here' already indicates the return value and its intended downstream use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only framing the tool's purpose rather than elaborating on app, role, text, depth, or actionable_only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find widgets by visible text') and positions itself as 'THE way to locate something to act on', which conveys its role among the broader toolset. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like ui_tree or find_text to differentiate itself, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: use this when you want to locate a real widget to act on, and it emphasizes robustness ('cannot miss and does not care where the window moved to'). It also provides a strong sequencing guideline ('find, then act') and warns about tree changes. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.